Table Of ContentLIST OF CONTRIBUTORS
Howard E. Aldrich University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill,
Chapel Hill, USA
Linda Amuso iQuantic, Inc., San Francisco, USA
Robert A. Baron Lally School of Management and
Technology, Troy, USA
Rosemary Batt Cornell University, Ithaca, USA
Karen Bishop University of Louisville, Louisville, USA
Daniel M. Cable University of North Carolina at Chapel
Hill, Chapel Hill, USA
Mary E. Graham Clarkson University, Potsdam, USA
Robert L. Heneman The Ohio State University, Columbus,
USA
Diane E. Johnson University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, USA
Jerome A. Katz Saint Louis University, St. Louis, USA
Gideon D. Markman University of Georgia, Athens, Greece
Brian Murray University of Dallas, Irving, USA
Judith W. Tansky The Ohio State University, Columbus,
USA
Theresa M. Welbourne University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, USA
Ian O. Williamson University of Maryland, College Park, USA
vii
INTRODUCTION:
HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
IN ENTREPRENEURIAL SETTINGS :
TOWARDS A RELATIONAL APPROACH
Remember just a few months ago - well, it seemed like just a few months ago
at least:
• when every college in the United States seemed to be starting up a new
curriculum in e-business;
• when endowed chairs were being given right and left to professors who
understood the brave new world of the "e" ;
• when students would not even attend those recruiting fairs for large,
established firms, and instead, started a new e-business or jumped into the
hottest dot com they could find;
• when all the large businesses took one floor and devoted it to "e" - these
companies forego the company dress code, bought pool tables, painted the
"e" floors cool colors, and fought to keep their talent because the latest "dot
com" down the street was trying to seduce their programmers to leave;
• when stock was worth a lot, but the company was not?
What did we learn in those days that seem so long ago?
First, most people did not really know what the "e" in e-business really
meant. We tried to tell them that the "e" word has been around for ages. It
stands for entrepreneurship. We, the people who study entrepreneurship, were
not surprised by the rise and fall of the dot corns . We also will not be surprised
by the steady growth in dot com businesses after the big bust. We saw the
coming, fallout and subsequent real business growth resulting from telephones,
biotechnology, computers, and more. The big "E" stands for entrepreneurship,
and regardless of industry or hottest craze, entrepreneurship is a global phenom-
enon that spurs economic growth, prosperity, new ideas, technology, jobs, and
ix
x THERESA M. WELBOURNE AND JEROME A. KATZ
education. Within each new industry that springs up, there are winners and
losers. This special issue is interested in the one constant that drives companies
to be successful or to fail. We think that one constant is how people are
managed, and how the cycle of people management changes as a company
faces the challenges of growth and survival .
The last years of the 20th Century may well have reflected a brief "golden age"
for human resource management. In an economy where ideas and capital were
plentiful, the critical facet for success increasingly became human resources .
Having the people on hand, with the right skills to bring new products into
existence with a first mover advantage became the definitive factor . Venture
capital financing was plentiful. Entrepreneurs with ideas were plentiful, but
ironically, organizational members, whether they were experienced managers,
programmers, webmasters, or graphic artists, were in short supply . As a result,
HRM policies and initiatives proliferated. Like the boom times that inspired them,
some of these efforts, such as on-site masseuses and 24-hour pizza bars, defined
what history will recall as indicative of the excesses of the period. On the other
hand, the experimentation around, and even the desperation for human resources,
no doubt will leave some aspects of HRM far better grounded and developed.
Building on these experiences, as well as a special issue of Entrepreneurship:
Theory & Practice, that we published on the topic in 2000, we have developed
a more in-depth, follow-on focused on human resource management and
entrepreneurship. Given the importance of entrepreneurship to our economy,
the criticality of human capital to assuring success, and the recent golden age
of HRM during the Internet Boom, you would think that the combination of
entrepreneurship and human resource management would draw a significant
number of researchers. We were surprised to find that was not the case. There
seems to be only a handful of individuals doing research that can be considered
to be at the juncture of these two fields, I and the chapters in this special issue,
we think, represent some of the best work being done on this topic . But given
the limited number of researchers, being "best" in a new area takes on a unique
meaning. Best means that ideas are being tried for the first time. This volume
does not represent the conclusive moment for HR & entrepreneurship . Instead,
it is at the beginning of what we hope will be a tidal wave of work that will
help small and medium-size businesses grow in the brave new world ahead .
If you are used to thinking about traditional human resource management
(HRM), then you probably expect chapters on selection, recruitment, training,
compensation, labor relations, and performance appraisal. These are the tools
of the trade that we call human resource management . In this book, you will
find some papers that cover those topics . But you will also find research on
leadership, firm growth, and the role of the CEO . The authors who wrote
Introduction xi
for this volume, along with the editors, think that the study of HRM and
entrepreneurship must go beyond the traditional domain of HRM because
people management in smaller, entrepreneurial firms is not dependent on an
HR department.
Ironically, the approach that has been traditionally used in the field of HRM,
finding the HRM department and describing what work it performed, has a
strong parallel with early entrepreneurship research. In HRM research, it's not
the existence of formal policies and procedures that will make or break a
company, but because formal policies can more easily be measured and
observed, those practices have tended to be the focus on much of the HRM
research. And because in most large companies, the group that is in charge of
these formal performance appraisal, selection and compensation practices is the
HRM department, that's where researchers have focused the study of people
issues within organizations.
Similarly, from its infancy in the 1950s through the mid-1990s, most
researchers'- studied entrepreneurs retrospectively, finding people who owned
businesses and looking at what they did and how they started. The lessons
of this approach to entrepreneurship research focused on the problem of
generalizability. The retrospective approach systematically overlooked many key
groups of entrepreneurs. For example, people who started short-lived businesses
or seasonal businesses were overlooked. People who started businesses so
"right" they were quickly bought up by their major customer or merged into
another firm were similarly lost. The firm that went bankrupt and the firm that
closed because of a successful harvest were both overlooked. The lesson of this
was the need to look prospectively and broadly at the processes and people of
entrepreneurship in order to truly understand what it means . With pioneering
efforts like the Entrepreneurship Research Consortium (Reynolds, 2000), this
became possible.
There is HRM going on in firms too small to have an HRM department, or
even an HRM officer. But when the HRM department is not there, who does
HRM? Like all other unassigned activities in the firm, it falls to the leadership
team, the founder, the CEO, and the rest of the senior management team .
Increasingly, the job of HRM also falls to the rest of the employees in the
company. These fledgling efforts are critical to the development of the HRM
capacity in the firm, because it has long been known that the organizational
culture and norms are established by the actions of the founder, or founding
team, in the firm's formative stages (Schein, 1983; Barron, Burton & Hannon,
1996; Boeker, 1989).
This means that these earliest HRM efforts are important in the here-
and-now as an effort to manage the firm's relationships with its employees and
xii THERESA M. WELBOURNE AND JEROME A. KATZ
in the future tense, as the basis for pointing out the direction, manner and
historical context of future elaborations of the HRM function in the firm . In
other words, to understand the HRM function of any firm in depth, it is essen-
tial to recognize, analyze and theorize about the HRM process for the firm's
inception. And to know about the HRM practices of all firms, both large and
small, requires using new approaches to theorizing about the HRM process. It
may well require theories that permit the development of prospective versus
retrospective methods of conceptualizing the HRM process .
Entrepreneurship's own method for moving from retrospective to prospective
sampling methods is instructive in helping craft a definition of HRM that is more
truly generalizable. We would like to suggest an answer to that question, and it
is one that we think will intrigue scholars from not only the field of HRM, but
from organization behavior, organization development, strategy, and entrepre-
neurship (and perhaps more). Unfortunately, formal HRM does not tend to be a
`construct' of interest to either CEOs or to academics studying entrepreneurship .
In entrepreneurial firms, securing and motivating employees is one of the
key elements of the founder's job description. Whether these employees are
family members contributing their work, or highly paid professionals with salary
and stock options, the fundamental activities of HRM fall onto the entrepreneur .
Hence, we would like to introduce an idea - that the "people" thing we need
to study is the relationship between an organization and its members.
Looked at this way, the centrality of an entrepreneurial basis for HRM
becomes readily apparent. When any organization is born, the founder does the
relationship management, and the organization and the founder may be nearly
isomorphic. In the parlance of Katz and Kahn's (1978) open systems theory,
the founder and the firm are nearly fully included in one another at birth. As
the company grows, the firm and the owner overlap less and less, reflecting the
increasingly partial inclusion, with the organization coming to represent an open
system in its own right. As this happens, the relation of the organization to the
founder in issues such as compensation and managerial development become
legitimate issues, and with the continued growth of the firm there is the greater
institutionalization and delegation of HRM, replacing the founder's relationships
with organizational members. As other open systems researchers demonstrated
(Eden, 1973, p. 75), organizational membership begins with the addition of the
first worker other than the owner, and shows a developmental progression in
complexity as more members are added (Eden, 1975; Weick, 1969), and as
levels of hierarchy grow, resulting in a loss of the direct relation between the
founder and the members (Jaques, 1976; Kets deVries, 1977).
This definition also facilitates a demarcation among differing sets of relation-
ships. Marketing reflects relationships with clients or customers. Finance reflects
Introduction xiii
relationships with those holding debt or equity positions. R&D reflects the
relationship to bodies of relevant intellectual properties or technologies, and
HRM represents the company's relationships with its human resources, the
organization's members.
Having these parallels based on segmentation of relationships is useful
because it facilitates learning from the findings of the related fields. For example,
success in IPO efforts depends on the integral involvement of the entrepreneur
or the venture team (Cyr, Johnson & Welbourne, 2000). One implication of
this is that a lack of top management involvement in any major relational
function arguably results in poor performance of the function . This can come
from a failure of top managers to spend enough time as the organization grows
and the entrepreneur is spread increasingly thin. It can also be seen as a result
of too great a degree of delegation.
Katz and Kahn (1978) identified the idea of the "leading subsystem" of an
organization, an idea that suggests that any organization will tend to focus its
attention on one of its key subsystems (what we call functions) . Historically,
research in entrepreneurial firms has shown that the CEO/founder usually
describes the firm's leading subsystem or distinctive competency in terms
of relationships with customers or investors or technologies, even though
professionals are hired to manage those formal ties. In industries that are more
dependent on its organizational members for success, whether because of the
sales relationships or technological skills of its members, several lines of
research are beginning to converge on the idea that those firms in which
the CEO is integrally involved with managing employee relationships are likely
to be more successful.
If indeed there is a general idea of relationship management in organizations,
and relations with employees (alias HRM), relations with customers (alias
Marketing), relations with competitors (alias Strategy) and relationships with
sources of debt or equity (alias Finance) are all applications of this approach,
it suggests that there might be some guiding principle of organizational rela-
tionship style (and its management) . So far the overall coherent management
of relationships in general has not been given a thought. If this general approach
exists, then we begin to see that relationship management might not be best
when contained in functional silos.
From the idea presented in this volume, we believe a case can be made
that one can view relationships with people as a key "strategic" advantage for
companies. Relationships are so central to firms. A case could be made that,
perhaps, a growing company should consider hiring someone as their Chief
Relationship Executive before they hire a HRM executive, or even a marketing
executive. In that way, a growing company would be strategic in the way that
xiv THERESA M. WELBOURNE AND JEROME A. KATZ
it manages its relationships with employees, customers, suppliers, investors, and
the general public.
Given the idea that relationship management is a key strategic variable, then
the construct of interest in this volume may not necessarily be HRM, but
relationship management in entrepreneurial firms, with the focus being
the management of relationships with employees . This approach also suggests
that the next step could be a research effort focused on relationships in general,
which would require even more merging of disciplines. This could lead to
an effort spanning how one enhances customer relationships, employee
relationships, supplier relationships, public relations, and investor relations in
entrepreneurial firms. Such an effort could serve as a topic of interest for either
a special issue of a journal or a conference.
The chapters in this volume are organized along the lines of the life cycle
of entrepreneurship from the nascent entrepreneur's initial considerations,
through firm formation, its search for a HRM strategy and its first employees,
and onto the handling of these employees within the organizational context .
In writing "Performance in Fast-growth firms: The behavioral and role
demands of the founders throughout the firm's development," Johnson and
Bishop offer a role-based view of the entrepreneurial firm through much of its
life cycle. Building on a diverse literature, they offer a conceptualization of
the roles founders play in the firm at different times, and then turn this view
around to consider how the demands of life cycle stage and its attendant roles
determine much of the time demands that entrepreneurs face . Their work
provides a cogent multilevel appreciation of how organizational macro variables
and individual micro variables mutually affect one another, paving the way for
an active line of research and normative modeling in the future.
Markman and Baron's "Individual Differences And The Pursuit Of New
Ventures: A Model Of Person- Entrepreneurship Fit" provides a visionary
approach to the consideration of entrepreneurial entry. Building from the
tradition of person-setting "fit" from motivational and vocational theory, they
develop the entrepreneurial firm as a setting-to-be and then extend the model
to account for the potential of fit, or misfit, between the entrepreneur and the
firm the entrepreneur creates. In the tradition of person-setting fit, the goal is
to explain the conditions leading to higher and lower levels of satisfaction as
a way of explaining motivated action by individuals. Their chapter is a fresh
application of a long-standing model in the work literature to an obvious, but
previously largely overlooked setting.
"Human Resource Management Models for Entrepreneurial Opportunity:
Existing Knowledge and New Directions" by Heneman and Tansky offers a
detailed literature review on past efforts by entrepreneurship and other
Introduction XV
researchers to detail the nature of Human Resource Management practices in
entrepreneurial firms. Offering coverage of universal, strategic and contingency
approaches to organizing and explaining HRM practices, they offer a synthetic
model grounded in the contingency approach but advanced through the inclusion
of variables and relations found in universal and strategic models as a "best
practice" approach to conceptualizing the HRM process in entrepreneurial firms .
If the relational idea that begins this introduction can be said to have sprung
from any single piece in this volume, "Smaller But Not Necessarily Weaker :
How Small Businesses Can Overcome Barriers To Recruitment" by Williamson,
Cable and Aldrich would be that chapter. Aldrich has long championed a
socially grounded approach to entrepreneurial processes, and in this chapter,
Williamson, Cable and Aldrich demonstrate how social relationships underlie
recruitment processes. Their choice of entrepreneurial firms as a setting in which
to show this stems from the clarity of the interaction of social networks and
recruitment in these smaller-scale settings. They offer a lesson on reframing
what some see as the shortcomings of small firms in order to attract highly
qualified recruits away from larger firms.
If the dot-com boom and bust is viewed as a naturally occurring experiment,
then one of the most evident manipulations of that unique time was the use of
stock as an inducement to join entrepreneurial firms. Graham, Murray, and
Amuso, in "Stock-Related Rewards in Entrepreneurial Firms," provide an
insightful and conceptually rich consideration of the role stock-related rewards
paid in firms during the dot.com era. Beyond the review of the substantial
literature on the topic, they are able to offer a unique empirical grounding
through the use of survey data from iQuantic's own surveys of firms using
stock-related rewards . This results in a chapter that melds concept and practice
and offers one of the best available efforts to understand the power and problems
of using stock as a reward in entrepreneurial firms .
Traditionally, and perhaps stereotypically, labor unions were a villain
of choice for small businesses. If entrepreneurial firms are supposed to exist
as a contrasting organizational form to conventional small businesses, then
there exists the possibility that old animosities might not have an excuse
to take hold in these entrepreneurial firms. Batt and Welbourne, in their
chapter, "Performance And Growth In Entrepreneurial Firms: Revisiting The
Union-Performance Relationship," provide an intriguing explanation why labor
unions and entrepreneurial firms could forge a mutually beneficial relationship
with a new basis. Building from the common ground of improving worker
knowledge and skill, Batt and Welbourne show how a human resource
development approach would benefit the workers by improving their skill and
claim to higher compensation, support the union tradition of efforts to assure
xvi THERESA M. WELBOURNE AND JEROME A. KATZ
high-quality, high-value labor, and the entrepreneurial firm which prides itself
on recruiting, developing and retaining superior talent as a competitive edge in
a world where expertise is paramount.
These chapters point up the richness of the relationships that underlie the
Human Resource Management process, and the beauty of studying these
relationships in entrepreneurial firms is that many of them can be viewed from
their inception, and in many cases for the smaller firms, in their entirety . As
such, the entrepreneurial firm would seem to offer a tremendous opportunity
as a setting in which to conduct HRM research. The chapters in this volume
echo this sentiment and build on this belief, helping to describe and project
the kinds of research questions that could be usefully addressed in the near
term, and offering the in-depth conceptualizations which would need to serve
as the foundation for a substantive contribution to the HRM, entrepreneurship
and relationship literatures. As you will find on the following pages, the
challenge of HRM in entrepreneurial firms is real and significant . It deserves
a real and significant involvement on the part of researchers . In that regard,
this volume is part of the start.
NOTES
1. Although not represented in this book, we would like to recognize the work being
done by a group of professors at Stanford University. Their work on HR practices in
emerging companies can be found on the university's web site under the Stanford Project
on Emerging Companies.
2. There are two important exceptions to this trend. The first was Mayer and Goldstein
(1961), who tracked all of the people trying to start businesses in Rhode Island . The
second was McClelland and Winter's (1969) pioneering study of achievement motivation
training and its entrepreneurial effects on a sample of volunteers in India.
REFERENCES
Baron, J. N., Burton M. D., & Hannon. M. T. (1996). The road taken: Origins and evolution of
employment systems in emerging companies. Industrial and Corporate Change, 5(2),
239-275.
Boeker, W. (1989). Strategic change: The effects of founding and history. Academy of Management
Journal, 32(3), 489-515.
Cyr, L. A., Johnson, D. E., & Welbourne, T. M. (2000). Human resources in initial public offering
firms: do venture capitalists make a difference? Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice,25(1),
77-92.
Eden, D. (1973). Self-employed workers: a comparison group for organizational psychology.
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 9, 186-214.
Eden, D. (1975). Organizational membership vs. self-employment: another blow to the American
dream. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13, 79-94.
Description:. The last years of the 20th Century may well have reflected a brief "golden age" for Human Resource Management. In an economy where ideas and capital were plentiful, the critical facet for success increasingly became human resources. Having the people on hand, with the right skills to bring new pro
